Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

cheddar cheese · Jul 31, 2005

If youre going to make the decision of B-17 over B-24 due to historical value, then sure that would make more sense the put the Lancaster ahead of the B-29, since most people would know the Lancaster ove rhte B-29 and also it saw much longer service. Switch the B-17 and B-24 around in your list, and on terms of ability I think I will agree with it 100%.

wmaxt · Jul 31, 2005

evangilder said:
If you are bombing an area that contained factories, I could see where it might effect the morale of the factory workers getting their homes bombed.

I Agree fully with that, also it does put AAA on a 24/7 basis, it dilutes the AAA by having more targets, and it does the same with other defensive forces.

The other side of the coin is that many large cities are resource drains they require Police, Fire, administration and a slew of service jobs that all have to be supported by products like food cloth and raw materials not to mention fuel. Stratigic bombing will/did quickly drive factory jobs into diversified cottage factories in better protection/dispersion localities.

The bombings in London, Dresden, Tokio etc just created hate and determination not to give up. I'm just not sure the investment really was worth the payment extracted. Though it must be recognized that logisticaly we had to split our forces to Day/Night and the rest follows that reality to some extent.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 31, 2005

No sorry CC. The B-29 deserves to be first because of the fact that is out right the best. When I say historical reasons I mean the fact that when you think of WW2 day light bombing of Europe what do you really think of the B-17 or the B-24? The B-17. Yes the B-24 was a better bomber but the B-17 could take more a beating and it is slightly more famous historically.

syscom3 · Aug 1, 2005

1: B29 - This was the "next" generation bomber of the WW2 era. To compare it to the B17/24/Lanc is like comparing those aircraft to a B10 bomber from the early 30's.
2: B17 - It didnt have the range or bomb load like the Lanc or B24, but it could get itself over the target in daylight.
3: B24 - It wasnt as sturdy as the B17, but it could be mass produced, and had adaquat performance for daylight missions.
4: B25 - In the Pacific, in the low level gunship role, it had a devestating impact on the Japanese airfields and maritime trade.
5: Lanc - No matter how many bombs it could carry, or for how far, it couldnt operate in daylight.

the lancaster kicks ass · Aug 1, 2005

ok firstly this particular discussion is for heavy bombers, but it's ok as you proberly didn't realise............

secondly, yes the B-29 should be top, the rest of your list, and your reasons, are wrong. You say the B-17 could bomb by day?? yes she did bomb by day, but she also suffered heavy losses and was defenceless without escorts! all them defencive guns were pretty useless against a -190A with the ability to pick and choose where he's gonna attack from

and are you basing this entirely on their ability to bomb during the day?? the reason the lanc wasn't an ideal day bomber, was quite simply because she wasn't designed to be, would you expect a spitfire to go on long range bombing missions with a 4,000lb cookie into germany?? no, she wasn't designed to. She was, with the possible need for a ventral gun, idealy suited to night bombing and as it happens, from 1944, she did bomb during the day!! she made a total of 40,139 bombing missions by day, i know that's not as many as the B-17, but she DID bomb by day...........

and you've put the B-17 above the lanc on the baisis purely of their ability to bomb by day, have you considdered their actual overall ability?? have you considdered the lanc was faster, could carry significantly higher bomb loads and could carry those bomb loads considderably further than a B-17?? Did you considder that the lanc was compared in manouverability to much smaller twin engined fighters?? did you considder that the lanc was extremely versatile and could carry almost all weapons including the Dambusting mine and the heaviest conventional bomb ever used in combat?? did you considder the lanc was good enough to remain in RAF service until 1956 and even later in other air arms?? speaking of other air arms did you considder that the lanc was used by at least 8 other air arms all around the world?? Did you considder the lanc was converted into long range heavy transports, civilian airliners and future bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that would serve the RAF into the 80s? did you considder the lanc's use in the electronic warfare role??

think on it, and enjoy your stay............

cheddar cheese · Aug 1, 2005

Yeah lanc, you tell that noob whos boss!

Nah, good points 8) I think seeing people top 5 mediums would be interensting.

plan_D · Aug 1, 2005

This isn't confined to the ETO so the B-24 should be ranked higher than the B-17. In fact, I haven't had any proof that the B-17 dropped more tonnage than the B-24 on Europe. The B-17s from the 8th Air Force dropped more, yes, but not from the 15th Air Force.

The Lancaster would have been able to operate in daylight with fighter escort, like the B-17 and B-24s received. In fact, they did late in the war. During 1943 the B-17s and B-24s received heavy blows on every mission, no effective escort was present and this showed as the USAAF was on the brink of abandoning daylight raids.

I'm a little confused why the B-24 would rank below the B-17. The fact is the B-24 was a better bomber and it also dropped more tonnage than the B-17 in the war. And I also think it did in the ETO but that hasn't been solved yet.

So, here's the list;

1: B-29 "Superfortress" - it was the best bomber of the war in ability and had a massive impact by dropping the atom bombs on Japan, ending the war in the pacific.

2: Lancaster - it was the second best in ability, far beyond the loads of those below it. It had an everlasting impact on Germany and carried almost every weapon available to the RAF, while carrying equipment on the cutting edge of technology.

3: B-24 - it was the most produced heavy bomber of the war. It dropped more tonnage than any other bomber of the war. It was a good bomber and superior in ability to all those below it.

4: B-17 - it was sturdy, got many crews home and did the job in daylight. It was the symbol of the Mighty 8ths power, and for good reason.

5: Halifax - it served Bomber Command well, it was an effective bomber and took the fight to Germany alongside the Lancaster.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 1, 2005

I agree with your list "D" and you assessment on the B-24. I believe politics had a lot to do with the -24 not being as loved as the -17. Ruben Fleet the CEO of Consolidated had numerous run in with the war department during WW2. This coupled with a high training accident rate on the -24 sealed its reputation as "the box the B-17 came in."

evangilder · Aug 1, 2005

The B-24 did have a pretty fragile nose wheel as well. I heard from an instructor pilot that it did very poorly on anything but well maintained runways.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 1, 2005

It's funny you should say that Eric, the photo of my wife's grandfather's B-24 clearly shows a repair by the nose.

evangilder · Aug 1, 2005

Yep, Joe. The Germans tried to land a captured Liberator on a rough grassy field. The nose wheel collapsed and damaged the aircraft. I showed the picture to Russ at the museum. He looked at it and said he wasn't surprised.

plan_D · Aug 1, 2005

How did the Liberator operate in the PTO with such distinction if it couldn't handle anything less than a well maintained runway? The runways of the CBI and PTO were hardly up to the standard of the British airstrips. Often they were little more than a cut out in the jungle.

Although the engineers in the CBI did excellent jobs with the few materials and tools they had at hand. I cannot remember the exact number but in India they built something around 150 airfields in little over 6 months. A remarkable achievement by anyone's standards.

evangilder · Aug 1, 2005

I think alot of the runways they cut into the jungles and islands in the Pacific and CBI used the corrogated steel plates which were fairly smooth for operating the Liberator and the C-87 Liberator Cargo version.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 1, 2005

plan_D said:
How did the Liberator operate in the PTO with such distinction if it couldn't handle anything less than a well maintained runway?

Pilot training?!? I think the PTO guys just made do and pushed on.

plan_D · Aug 1, 2005

It really didn't affect the performance of the B-24 though. I'm sure Consolidated would have attempted to solve the problem if it was a big matter. British and Italian runways were kept in good condition so, that avoided the problem.

Those in India and China would have had to be good if they were to take the B-24, C-87 and C-109 I suppose. As I say, the engineers in the CBI and PTO were excellent.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 1, 2005

Yep, agree

evangilder · Aug 1, 2005

Absolutely. I am not taking away from the record of the B-24, just noting that the fragile nosewheel was fairly well-known to the crews that flew them.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 1, 2005

I remember this photo - this guy landed in Alaskan Tundra - It looks like he did a good job!

evangilder · Aug 1, 2005

Is the nose wheel intact? Looks like it left a pretty good gouge where the nose wheel would have been.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 1, 2005

It didn't flip - I wonder what the NLG and wheel well looked like. If undamaged, I bet there was enough gunk in that nose wheel to grow a garden!

Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Major General

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"Shooter"

Lieutenant Colonel

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Attachments

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads